BOMBAY OIL INDUSTRIES v. UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1984] 1 S.C.R. 815

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, R.B. MISRA

Case summary

tribunals act fairly and dispose of the matters before them by Well considered orders.

Judgment text

BOMBAY OIL INDUSTRIES v. UNION OF INDIA November 14, 1983 _ [Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C. J. , E. S. VENKATARAMIAH AND R. B. MISRA, JJ,] Monopolies ilitd Restrfctive Trade Pra"ctices Act, J. 969-Ss. 21; 22 WJ. d 23- . 0bjectors n1ust be supplied witii relevant materials-Government must gi:. ,e goOd ·c rrasons in support ofits order. . .. • HELD: The faith of the people in administra~ive tribunals' can ·be· sustained only if . the . tribunals act fairly and dispose of the matters before them by Well considered orders. Refusal to furnish relevant _materials to the objectors can amount to denial of reasonable ~pportuility and violatiOn of natural justice: [816 C & E] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No. 3191 of 1983. WITH E-. S. L. P. (CIVIL) No. 4311 of i983. From the Judgment and Order dated the 30th November, 1982 passed by the Govt. of_lridia u/s. 22 of the Monopolies & Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 bearing No. 2/18/80-M·Il. Ani/ B. Divan ana B. V. Desai for the Appellant.

B. V. ·Desai for the petitioner. _P. R. Mridul, Ravindra Narain, D. N. Misra and Ashok Sagar for the respondent in C. A. No. ·3191/83. M. L. Ta/ukdar, C. V. Subba Rao and R. N. Poddar for the respondent. D. N. Misra and R. N. Poddar for the respondent in S. L. P. r No. 4. 311/83. I - ·- ·- 816 SUPRBMB COURT REPORTS [1984) 1 S. C. R; . . . . The Order of the C9urt was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, C. J. The ·order of the Government dated · ... :November 30, '1982 Which is impugned in these proceeding leaves much to be desiied. ]lut we do hot propose t"o admit the appeal since: after hearing a longish argument fro~ Shri Atiil B. Divan on behalf Of the appellant, We are ·Satisfied on the material produced . before us and on perusal of the 'counter affidavit of the Government · . that, there were good reasonsfor passing the impugned. order.. We must, however, impress upon the .

Government that while disposing of applications under· Sections 21, 22 and i3 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, · 1. 969 it must give good reasons in support ofits order. and not merely state iis bald conclusion. The faith of the people in administrative . · tribunals can be sustained only if the tribunals a~ fairly and dispose of the matters b~fore them by well consi<! ered orders.. The. relevant material musf be·made avail-· able to be. objectors because with out it, -they cannot possibly must the claim or contentiom of the applicants under Sections 21, 22 and 23 of the MRTP Act. The refusar of the Government to furnish such material to the objectors can amount to·a denial of a reasonableopportnnity to the objectors to 'meot the applicant's case. And denial of a reasonable oppo~unity to meet the other man's case. is denial ofnatural justice: . ·. On the quesiion of the need to give reasons in support o.

f the ·conclusions to Which the Governinel)t has come, the authorities concerned may, . with profit, see the Judgments of this Court in . ' Union ofIndia v. Mohan Lal Capoor & Ors. ,(i) Siemens Engineering & 2 Manufacturing Co. of India . Limited v. Union of India & Ans. ( ) and · 8 Uma Charan v: State'ofMadhya J'radesh & Anr. ( ) · ' . . - . With these observations we dismiss the special leave petition and the appeal. H. L. C. Petition dismis;~d. • (1) [197411 SCR 797 • (2) [1976) Suppl. SCR 489 (3) [1982] 1 SCR! 353 . • ' .